[Peace-discuss] Re: hostility towards activists

[Randall Cotton]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Edwards" <scottisimo at hotmail.com>
To: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 9:27 AM
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Re: hostility towards activists


: >As for the local and campus Darfur activists, they need to answer some hard
: >questions.  Let me >ask:  Where is the campus "die-in" for Iraq?  Wither
: >the "million postcards" for Iraq?  And I repeat, >whatever one thinks of
: >the relative magnitudes of the crimes, the one in Iraq is being carried out
: > >in your name.
:
: These aren't hard questions. They are silly questions. I'm not a "Darfur
: activist" and I don't know these people, but I'd imagine some wouldn't know
: the answers to these questions, since they are DARFUR activists. I'm sure
: plenty of them can tell you about Iraq war events on campus, though. All
: those people who actually DO things to effect change instead of deriding
: from the sidelines tend to hang out. You'll recognize them as the ones
: giving you the finger when you imply that, because they aren't working on
: doing something about TWO travesties, they are complicit in the atrocities
: in Iraq.

Scott, the problem with this is that you equate the moral urgency of mitigating
the atrocities in Darfur (which we did not cause and in which we do not actively
participate) and the atrocities in Palestine and Iraq, for which we are either
an intimate participant (Israel) or the singular cause (Iraq).

Tom speaks of things "being carried out in your name" - what that means is
you're paying for it. We all are. You and I, through federal taxes are directly
paying for and thus participating in the atrocities in Palestine and Iraq to the
tune of hundreds or thousands of dollars every year from each of us. That's what
makes it a greater moral urgency than Darfur. That's not to say we should ignore
Darfur, but neither should we allow the U.S. to take advantage of the situation
in Darfur to establish our own military (and thus political) presence and
influence (directly with U.S. military personnel on the ground or through
U.S.-dominated organizations), feigning altruistic intentions in the way we have
done many times throughout history. With history as our guide, in fact, I think
we can safely conclude that allowing this to happen will only lead to yet
another situation in which we are paying for and participating in the U.S.
victimization of people in yet another part of the world, this time in Sudan.

It seems to me that U.S. efforts should focus on providing massive financial and
political support for internationally-coordinated peace negotiations,
humanitarian aid, and regional peacekeeping/monitoring forces such as the
African Union.

And so I would ask Scott - why is that not a better solution? Saying it's not
"politically feasible" or words to that effect wouldn't tell us anything new, so
please set aside the argument that the U.S. and our allies would oppose this
approach and so it could never happen - in fact, presume for the moment they
wouldn't oppose it. Why would this then not be a better solution?

Thanks
R